Hillary Clinton Rakes in Big Money from Two Goldman Sachs Speeches in One Week

[eridani]

But that was two years ago, unlike Bernie advocating for orgasms to cure cancer, which was just last week. I'm sure she's evolved since then. Anyway, those $200K speeches of course don't count as campaign donations.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/hillary-clinton-rakes-big-money-two-goldman-sachs-speeches-one-week

Former Secretary of State, and presumed 2016 presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton spoke at two separate Goldman Sachs events in the past week (on October 24, and then again on October 29), for a cool $200,000 per speech, her normal fee according to Politico and the New York Times. $400,000—not a bad payday for the former First Lady.

Alec Torres of the National Review Online reports that, on the 24th, Clinton spoke for the AIMS Alternate Investment Conference, a closed event held exclusively for Goldman clients. AIMS is an annual conference that explores strategic models and new products available to financial advisers. Pretty exclusive stuff.

This Tuesday, Clinton spoke to the Builders and Innovators Summit, about entrepreneurship, and how best to help investors expand their own personal business models. According to Politico, which covered the event, Clinton conducted a question-and-answer session with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein. The investment giant declined to comment on the subject of Clinton’s talk, or why she in particular was invited to the events.

The two speaking engagements follow Clinton’s visits to private-equity firms KKR this past July, and the Carlyle Group just last month. At KKR’s annual investor meeting in California, Clinton was on hand to answers questions from Harry Kravis, the film’s co-founder, on the subjects of the Middle East, Washington, and politics. At the Carlyle Group, Clinton is said to have made a speech to shareholders that was moderated by the group’s founder David Rubenstein.

[wyldwolf]

1. "But that was two years ago... unlike Bernie... just last week."

Sorry, eridani, it's the Sanders folks (really, the supporters of the outside candidate each election cycle) who consistently dig through archives to find things from the past.

If you don't like it in regards to your candidate, perhaps you should ask others in your camp to tone it down themselves?

By the way, if you think Sanders is going to escape the primary season without a lot of scrapes and bruises, you're wrong. There's oppo research a-plenty on him. No one is taking him serious enough yet to reveal it.

And finally, Sander's wacky past of making medical and psychological diagnosis feeds into the general belief by many he's a kook. And I can guarantee if you polled people on which is the most disturbing thing- getting paid for speeches or declaring lack of orgasms cause cancer, people are going to say the latter.

[eridani]

2. Really? You need to get out more

More people care about income inequality than whacky theories about orgasms. Anyone sucking up to investment bankers is not on my side.

[wyldwolf]

3. Thank you for your concern and your comment

[virtualobserver]

4. He's wacky and he's kooky,socialist and spooky. He's psycho and he's ooky,

the supporters of the "outside" candidate. eh......not the hip members of the in crowd.

your post feeds into the general belief that Hillary is desperate and losing her grip.......the only thing that is disturbing is the weak and embarrassing spin....


You're travelling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop, the Hillary Zone!"

[WillyT]

12. "He's wacky and he's kooky, socialist and spooky. He's psycho and he's ooky...

the Sanders' Tsu-Na-Mi !



What do I win ???

[virtualobserver]

13. How about a ticket to the inauguration........?

an unofficial one.

[restorefreedom]

16. actually

there is medical evidence to support a connection at least in men

but i am pretty sure most people are more concerned with where their next meal is coming from, will they have a job in a year, and what's going to happen in the future of this country.

[BrotherIvan]

5. The speeches are a problem

A big problem that Republicans can attack her with in the general. Everyone knows that no one is worth $200,000 for an hour long speech.

[Buns_of_Fire]

10. But... but... they get "pithy reflections" as part of the deal!

Spokespeople for several of the companies and organizations that have hosted Clinton as a speaker say her contract prevents them from disclosing her payment, though several point to news reports pegging her usual fee at $200,000 a speech. The New York Times reported last summer that Clinton's typical speech features "pithy reflections" and lessons from her tenure as secretary of state such as "Leadership is a team sport," "You can't win if you don't show up," and "A whisper can be louder than a shout." The cost of travel and the use of private jet, according to the Times, are negotiated as part of her fee.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-private-equity-white-house-2016

So who thinks an hour's worth of a politician's pithy reflections is worth $200,000? I imagine the same people who think David Zaslav (CEO of Discovery Communications) is worth $156,077,912 a year. In other words:

http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/Paywatch-2014/100-Highest-Paid-CEOs

[BrotherIvan]

11. But it's not illegal, so anything goes!

I have nothing to say if they think her time is worth that much. But it disqualifies her for public office because then it is influence.

[Raine1967]

14. Actually, I don't think the Republicans have a problem with her speaking fees.

They sure as hell aren't complaining about B*sh charging 100K for a wounded vets speaking engagement.
http://dallas.suntimes.com/dal-news/7/75/147435/george-w-bush-charged-veterans-charity-100k-speak-fundraiser

George W Bush charged a military veterans’ charity $100,000 to speak at a fundraiser in 2012. Meredith Iler, the former chair of Helping a Hero, told ABC News, “It was great because he reduced his normal fee of $250,000 down to $100,000.”

The former president was also provided with a private jet to travel to the event in Houston at a cost of $20,000, ABC News reported, citing unnamed officials. A spokesperson for the former President, Freddy Ford, confirmed the payment to ABC News.

I really don;t think the GOP gives on bit of a crap about this.

This is something that the Dem base is going to have to hash out.

I personally have a problem with these speeches because I simply believe that no one is going to pay that much without expecting a return for the investment. I don;t begrudge the ability to make money and earn a living as it were but she her speaking fees are the same level as B*sh.

I don't mind politicians getting paid for speaking fees, I always tend to see who is paying for this fees, why the groups are paying for those fees and how much those fees are.

Even Bernie got paid… http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/242740-bernie-sanders-2014-speaking-gigs-netted-less-than-2k (that was a bad attempt at light hearted humor) I think Bernie could have gotten a few more dollars.

The Clintons have donated a part of their fees to Charity the same way Bernie has, so there is that.

O'Malley made it clear he would do speaking gigs after he left the governor's office as well: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/omalley-planning-to-give-paid-speeches-after-he-leaves-maryland-governors-office/2015/01/14/302885f4-9c41-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html

[BrotherIvan]

15. I disagree, I think the Clinton money issues thing is just sitting out there

The Republicans have a whole campaign ready because she has been inevitable so long. The Clintons have an air of riding the line. They will definitely capitalize on this.

[Raine1967]

17. You could be right, the Repubs have little to no self awareness about themselves.

I personally have a problem with the amount of her fees and who is paying her for them.

and I still believe this is going to an issue we (Dems) are going to have to hash out if she becomes the nominee.

The Clinton's made a lot of many giving speeches. Who they getting paid to give them to is a really bad optic. And at this point, who Hillary Clinton is giving them to is what I am more concerned with.

[BrotherIvan]

18. Exactly right

Banks, Keystone firms, The Carlyle group??? It was her choice to do that, so she should have to live with the fact that some Democrats don't like it. Did she think it wouldn't get out? She is a more vulnerable candidate than in 2008.

[JaneyVee]

6. And what was she advocating for?

She also sat on Walmart board and other board members claimed "she was a thorn in Sam Waltons side, advocating for better enviro practices, more women, and made in USA products". Do you have context about this speech?

[eridani]

7. Teh contect is that--

"The investment giant declined to comment on the subject of Clinton’s talk, or why she in particular was invited to the events." If either Hilary or the banksters were OK with letting the general public in on what was going on, we'd know.

[JaneyVee]

8. So you got nothing, huh?

[eridani]

9. Banksters are working for US--that's why they won't rell

Not telling = they are going to fuck us over again. Why Clinton insists on sucking up to them is beyond me. And why any Democrat would defend those sociopathic shitstains is beyond me.